Can I Turbo a Stock Diesel?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

The Pilatus is a wonderful airplane, I’d rather have one than a King Air myself, and if I had that kind of money, it’s the airplane I’d want as it has great short field capability.
The Diamond Diesels are horrible airplanes in my opinion, slow and no useful load and two engines to fail, I’d much rather have a Cessna 210 myself, their only use to is get a twin engine rating, something I never did, cause I knew I’d likely never own a twin.

Best thing to do in my opinion is to set aside a couple of months to get your private in a C-152 or a C-172. Now the trick is to take is seriously and work at it to get it done, you have to fly three or more times a week.
Most people never finish, they fly every now and again and mostly rehash what they have forgotten to get back to a basic level but don’t progress, and eventually give up.
I had a rich Uncle pay for my ticket and of course it was my job to learn.
Most Civilians don’t take it seriously, it to them is recreation and not work, so they never finish. You need to consider it like a College course, go in knowing that it’s work, and sometimes it’s not always fun, it is rewarding though, just training if it’s good, may not always be entertaining.

Most of my Civilian flying so did myself was a little bush plane, a Maule.
This was it years ago camping at Sun-N-FunAttachment 162431

Thanks for this. I've been reading about since I was a child and have a pretty good idea about what it takes to get a license. I know would enjoy it enormously. What stops me is that I know that the large amount of time it would take to do it properly, would come straight out of my time for sailing. I just haven't been willing to do that. By the time I'm too feeble to sail, I'll be too feeble to fly, unfortunately.

[a64pilot]

Guy who wrote this book is a very good friend of mine and mentor.
Many years ago he had pancreatic cancer, and survived. He got his Doctorate at the German university that the Horton brothers taught at or maybe attended I’m not sure.
Anyway Ralph has had a hip replacement and is in his 80’s and I used to help him get into the airplane, but he can still fly, and fly very well. He still has several aircraft of his own and with his Doctorate and his Flt test DER pretty much what Ralph says, the FAA buys.
If you can walk and have a clear mind, you can fly. It takes a lot less physical ability than sailing does. I will probably return to aviation when I’m to old to cruise. I still have my A&P but will let my IA lapse as I won’t be able to keep up with the yearly recurring education / experience, but will keep my Commercial licenses, they are good unless surrendered or revoked.
Also I think this year the flt physical requirement for a Private Pilot was relaxed a lot, but don’t know enough to comment, it used to be a big hassle, more than it should have been.
https://www.abebooks.com/book-search...lph-kimberlin/

[leftbrainstuff]

Sure. But what is the issue you have?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Guy who wrote this book is a very good friend of mine and mentor.
Many years ago he had pancreatic cancer, and survived. He got his Doctorate at the German university that the Horton brothers taught at or maybe attended I’m not sure.
Anyway Ralph has had a hip replacement and is in his 80’s and I used to help him get into the airplane, but he can still fly, and fly very well. He still has several aircraft of his own and with his Doctorate and his Flt test DER pretty much what Ralph says, the FAA buys.
If you can walk and have a clear mind, you can fly. It takes a lot less physical ability than sailing does. I will probably return to aviation when I’m to old to cruise. I still have my A&P but will let my IA lapse as I won’t be able to keep up with the yearly recurring education / experience, but will keep my Commercial licenses, they are good unless surrendered or revoked.
Also I think this year the flt physical requirement for a Private Pilot was relaxed a lot, but don’t know enough to comment, it used to be a big hassle, more than it should have been.
https://www.abebooks.com/book-search...lph-kimberlin/

Thank you! That's inspiring. I sure don't want to think about being "too old to cruise"; my Dad only quit sailing when he was 87 and I've got a few decades to go before that age. But God knows what life will bring. Maybe some day I might even retire, although I don't really plan on doing that.

[model 10]

[QUOTE=a64pilot;2557129]This airplane, my design, an Experimental design at the time and had a Walter M701 turbine in it he GE so I would push the N1 speed to max continuous which was 101.5% and leave it there.


I'm surprised to hear you designed the Turbine Thrush. Leland Snow and Fred Ayres would wonder too.

[a64pilot]

No, I didn’t design the Turbine Thrush, it was designed in California by an STC house, Serv-Aero I think. Leyland and Fred had nothing to do with it. But I did the H-80, or led the team that did, nothing is really a one man design.
Some comparison numbers gross weight of the T-34, 6000 lbs, gross weight of the H-80 10,500 lbs, VNE of the 34,160, VNE of the 80,186.
Flap speed of the H-80 is VNE for the -34. Many parts are the same, but useful load, speeds and maneuvering limits are hugely expanded as well as CG limits, and the H-80 is about 200 lbs lighter, and 200 lbs is huge. The H-80 as a single cockpit comes in slightly under 5,000 lbs, but has a gross weight of 10,500 lbs, which means it has a useful load more than its empty weight. Useful load of around 5500 lbs, the -34 had a legal useful load of less than 1,000 lbs, although of course it was always flown at the max weight it could get off the ground with, which is much higher.

The H-80 is of course the continual evolution of the Thrush, but it’s so much of a clean sheet design that it has its own type certificate as opposed to a change to an existing type certificate which is usually what is done and what we did to build the 550, which I won’t take credit for, the 550 is actually an S2R-T34HG or an S2R-T65 HG depending on engine, we even modified the type certificate so that the S2R-T65 could have either a Honeywell -10 engine or a Pratt -60, but cannot have the -65 for which it’s named.

Leyland didn’t design the Thrush, North American Rockwell did, but Leyland did design the S2D. North American Rockwell at the time was designing the Apollo space Capsule and had designed the X-15 and of course the P-51 and others, Rockwell had tremendous Engineering assets.
Any S2R is a Rockwell design. I’m trying to remember the name of the the Engineer that was more the actual Father of the Thrush than anyone, he was in a wheelchair when I met him. He was an Engineer, Structural DER and Flight test DER, a virtual one man band. Bothers me I can’t remember his name a he was a heck of a guy, but I’m terrible with names. It will come to me eventually.
Fred didn’t design anything, Fred is a businessman, he bought the STC to put a turbine on the Thrush and eventually got it Certified after he bought the factory, until then he built Radials, pushed them across the airport and applied the STC. Not to take anything away from Fred, he was a good pilot I have heard and started flying Ag before I was born in a cub in Alabama I think, he was a smart business guy, maybe too smart.
Fred is a Fred, an interesting little guy, he is still around and sells insurence.

[model 10]

[QUOTE=a64pilot;2557537]No, I didn’t design the Turbine Thrush, it was designed in California by an STC house, Serv-Aero I think. Leyland and Fred had nothing to do with it. But I did the H-80, or led the team that did, nothing is really a one man design.
Leyland didn’t design the Thrush, North American Rockwell did, but Leyland did design the S2.

Sorry for the thread drift folks; Leland ran the ag plane division at Rockwel, so he would be surprised of your taking credit for the turbine Thrush. If he was still alive that is. Fred may have sold more Thrush's than anyone so he too might wonder who you are.

[a64pilot]

Leyland passed a year or two ago, went like I would like to, had a heart attack while out running I think, but he went suddenly and was in good health and had a bright mind and then he was gone. He had lost his Son in law to an accident in an 802 and I think that weighed heavily on him. No he didn’t run the Albany plant, in fact he was asked to leave to put it nicely. He left, went back to Tx, started Air Tractor and did very, very well and I’m sure didn’t miss Albany Ga at all. Rockwell continued to “play” with little airplanes like the 112, 114 etc. didn’t do very well at it and sold the plant and the Type Certificates for the Thrush line to Fred, and Fred bought the STC for the turbine conversion, began manufacturing the first factory built turbine Ag plane and did very well himself, then got in over his head with the FedEx contract for the Loadmaster and lost the plant.
Trivia but Thrush holds the Type Certificates for the original Snow’s as Leyland had sold everything to Rockwell and it passed to Fred.

[Steve Win]

SORRY for reviving this thread after 5 years of slumber (and the "thread drift" to aircraft engines and flying).. but..

I am considering adding a turbo to Rocinante, for low end torque, efficiency, and better combustion and emissions. The lifeboat hits its 8kt hull speed at about 2600 rpm, redline is at 3000 rpm, which doubles fuel burn for maybe 1 more knot of speed. I am converting Rocinante from her former lifeboat service, into a gold mining dredge to work 9ffshore out of Nome, AK.

I have no plan to exceed 2600 rpm in any case except when fighting a headwind to avoid being blown ashore, or possibly towing another boat in an emergency.. but I am hoping that a turbo with modest boost pressure would enable the engine to reach 2600 rpm with less fuel input. Diesel in Nome was selling for $7.50/gal on the street in Summer '23, so anything which reduces fuel consumption will return measurable benefits quickly.

I am also considering converting her to diesel-electric propulsion. This would mean adding a 3 phase, 45KVA generator behind the engine, with a 3 phase motor coupled to the prop shaft, with a multi frequency drive to regulate power and speed to the propulsion motor. This would save me from needing to carry a second diesel engine with a generator to power mining equipment like water pumps, air compressors etc..

My engine is a 1987 SABB M4 295 gr lb, based on a Mitsubishi S4E2 engine. The exhaust manifold is water jacketed, plumbed into the keel cooler system, so the exhaust out of the manifold is dry (wrapped with rock wool lagging) until it passes out of the boat. I am planning to replace the exhaust pipe with a custom built stainless, seawater jacketed assembly, adding a raw water pump to the engine to supply the flow for this system, mixing the water into the exhaust only after the transom riser. It would be feasable to include a separate segment of this exhaust to match the turbine inlet and outlet flanges of a selected turbo, to facilitate insertion/omission of the turbo at will.

Anyway, again.. sorry for reviving the old thread, but most of the discussion here seemed to be about "turbo for power and speed" (which is futile with a displacement hull), and I wanted to invite more exploration of "midrange torque", "efficiency/range at given speed", and "emissions profile" topics as possible reasons for adding a turbo to a NA diesel.

[ranger58sb]

Can't speak to efficacy (or not) of your idea, but see post #9, again... just in case.

-Chris

[SailingHarmonie]

I think this is much more complex to do right than some people here seem to think.

Almost all diesel turbo installs I see have a waste gate to control maximum boost, and a boost feedback to the injection pump. I am not aware of many engines that use the same injection pump with the same timing as their non-turbo versions.

In all engine bocks I have seen that come in turbo and naturally aspirated models the injection pump is different, the injection timing is different, and the valve timing is different. All things that can be changed, but not likely to be well done by the average shade tree mechanic.

[skipperpete]

Yes, you can fit a turbo BUT it’s labour intensive and you will use more fuel not less. The whole idea of a turbo is to extract waste energy from the exhaust to spin a turbine attached to a compressor wheel to push more air into the engine in order to burn more fuel to achieve more horsepower, in fact the hardest part of the job is opening up the maximum fuel setting in the injector pump to the exact point where the boost air supply and the fuel ratio are balanced. Too much fuel... black smoke, too little fuel.... no advantage obtained other than possibly a better scavenge cycle.
Another down side is that most turbos aren’t water cooled like on our small marine engines, that turbine housing gets VERY HOT and becomes a fire hazard even if it’s wrapped in a turbo blanket...... although it might become a welcome source of cabin heat in Alaska. The place to look for additional info is YouTube, there are heaps of posts there with folks doing exactly what you’re contemplating, but on diesel pickups and SUV’s.
About the 3 phase cruise generator.... again YES you can do it but it has to be kept on frequency and your lifeboat engine most likely has a variable speed Governor not the constant speed type required by an AC generator. Another difficulty is supporting the propeller shaft to stop it being pulled out of alignment by the belt drive , usually this is done by putting a “Cooper bearing” either side of the drive pulley and of course there’s the inevitable problem of pulling the whole thing apart to change the belts.

[Bowdrie]

Special/custom manifolding, custom bracketry/mounting, new exhaust with low backpressure, additional pumping/plumbing, oil supply to turbo, changes to injection and timing, more oil cooling capacity, etc. ad infinitum.
I'm sure I forgot a bunch of other details.
And you'll need to think about the additional heat in the engine compartment.
How much less fuel do you think you'll burn?
How many hours of operation will it take to amortize/realize any "savings in fuel costs"?